Consolidated government power led directly to federal cannabis prohibition.
The 17th Amendment may have been the final nail in the consolidation coffin...
The destructive 17th Amendment was ratified in 1913...
A mere 7 years later...alcohol prohibition was forced down every State's throat...which of course was the precedent and model for the cannabis prohibition we still suffer under...
Sad that so many on a cannabis forum apparently pine for mob rule...which is what Democracy amounts to.
Democracy = two alcoholics and a cannabis toker vote on which substance to prohibit...in short, the tyranny of the majority (this may have some appeal if one is part of the 50%+1...not so much if you happen to be in the 50%-1 camp).
In a Constitutional Republic the cannabis toker may exercise his 2nd Amendment in order to persuade the tyrant alcoholics to back off...
But, the comatose condition of *critical thinking* in this country appears to be simply suicidal as we drift towards absolute authoritarianism...
We may be near the end of affording the luxury of -emoting rather than thinking- as such has led us to the brink of bankruptcy of much more than financial things.
I suggest all read the following-despite its length-with your thinking caps on, as Mr. Denninger appears to have really exposed our dilemma.
Now, all the fussing about Trump-at this point-is ridiculous, as he is not a professional political critter, and *alone among all the candidates* has championed the restoration of Rule of Law. I shouldn't have to remind any here that true restoration of Rule of Law necessarily means the War on *some* drugs-the prime corruptor of Rule of Law-must be ended.
Rule of Law is the critical foundation of any worthy society, and our has almost completely crumbled to dust AT THE HANDS OF NEARLY ALL POLITICAL CRITTERS REGARDLESS OF PARTY AFFILIATION.
Should Trump abandon his promises then by all means...tear him up, but being he is an outsider, people might at least wait and see rather than pointlessly arguing over an election that is a settled matter...
We surely have got the Chinese curse of living in interesting times...
If we engage our thinking processes we can make the most of it. Time to toss emotion-based thought in the trash can.
From Karl Denninger, The Market Ticker:
That'll Be Enough
Let me make a few observations.
First, eight years ago, and again four years ago, America elected a President. Fully half, give or take a couple of percent, disagreed with the outcome.
There were exactly zero riots, fires, "mass protests" and similar following that outcome despite the fact that half the population vehemently disagreed with it.
This time around, not so much.
Now I want you think very carefully about the following.
Most of the land mass of this nation is owned and resided upon by people who are in "red" (that is, the winner this time) areas of the country. With the exception of certain urban centers and right along the Mexican/Texas border there are very few "solid" blue areas.
Those urban centers consume roughly 90% of the energy and food in this country yet they comprise 5-10% of the land mass. The "red" areas produce 95% of the food and energy this nation consumes and occupies 90-95% of the land mass.
Do you really think that doing something like eliminating the last pieces of the structure our founding fathers put in place to prevent tyranny of the majority from being able to take hold is a good idea?
A little history lesson: Prior to the 17th Amendment ratified in 1913 it was impossible for the Federal Government to shove any program down the throats of the 50 states. That's because the state legislatures had effective control of the Senate and could recall their Senators.
The House was elected by the people, the Senate was elected by The State Legislatures (and could be recalled by same) and The President was elected by the Electors, which were voted for in the popular vote.
The latter provides a modest but real increase in the representation of "flyover" states; that is, those with lower population counts. In other words it is a check and balance in the ultimate tyranny of democracy.
Yes, I said democracy is ultimately tyrannical -- because it is.
America is not a Democracy. It is a Constitutional Republic. This is very important; in a democracy 50%+1 can render the 50%-1 slaves by mere vote. Those who are in the minority in a democracy have no rights at all.
We are all minorities in some form or fashion. If you're gay, black, yellow, male, female, whatever -- all it takes is some other set of groups to get together and decide to oppress you, and in a democracy you're fucked.
America's founding fathers put in place two systems to prevent this. The first was the bicameral legislature; a House elected by the people at large and a Senate elected by the State Legislators. This structure guaranteed that a landmass that amassed 50%+1 of the population (not even in the same state or states!) could not band together and shove down the throat of the States any policy measure because you needed the concurrence of more than half the state legislatures, where each were delegated but two votes to their Senators who were accountable to said legislature, to pass anything at all.
This evaporated with the passage of the 17th Amendment. Now you only needed 50%+1 of the people in a given state to pass anything you wanted and they could all live in a tiny percentage of the land mass -- such as is the case with Illinois where more than half the population lives in the immediate area of Chicago.
What came right after that? Prohibition, shoved down the throat of the States, less then 7 years later!
What also came after it was an unbridled expansion of the Federal Government into state affairs. Indeed, virtually everything became a "legitimate" federal matter. Why? Because it was impossible for the States to prevent it.
Do you think the founders were wrong to do what they did, and the 17th Amendment corrected that?
If you believe so then please consider this.
Due to exceeding the 10,000 character limit, see Part 2 for the rest of Karl's article.
The 17th Amendment may have been the final nail in the consolidation coffin...
The destructive 17th Amendment was ratified in 1913...
A mere 7 years later...alcohol prohibition was forced down every State's throat...which of course was the precedent and model for the cannabis prohibition we still suffer under...
Sad that so many on a cannabis forum apparently pine for mob rule...which is what Democracy amounts to.
Democracy = two alcoholics and a cannabis toker vote on which substance to prohibit...in short, the tyranny of the majority (this may have some appeal if one is part of the 50%+1...not so much if you happen to be in the 50%-1 camp).
In a Constitutional Republic the cannabis toker may exercise his 2nd Amendment in order to persuade the tyrant alcoholics to back off...
But, the comatose condition of *critical thinking* in this country appears to be simply suicidal as we drift towards absolute authoritarianism...
We may be near the end of affording the luxury of -emoting rather than thinking- as such has led us to the brink of bankruptcy of much more than financial things.
I suggest all read the following-despite its length-with your thinking caps on, as Mr. Denninger appears to have really exposed our dilemma.
Now, all the fussing about Trump-at this point-is ridiculous, as he is not a professional political critter, and *alone among all the candidates* has championed the restoration of Rule of Law. I shouldn't have to remind any here that true restoration of Rule of Law necessarily means the War on *some* drugs-the prime corruptor of Rule of Law-must be ended.
Rule of Law is the critical foundation of any worthy society, and our has almost completely crumbled to dust AT THE HANDS OF NEARLY ALL POLITICAL CRITTERS REGARDLESS OF PARTY AFFILIATION.
Should Trump abandon his promises then by all means...tear him up, but being he is an outsider, people might at least wait and see rather than pointlessly arguing over an election that is a settled matter...
We surely have got the Chinese curse of living in interesting times...
If we engage our thinking processes we can make the most of it. Time to toss emotion-based thought in the trash can.
From Karl Denninger, The Market Ticker:
That'll Be Enough
Let me make a few observations.
First, eight years ago, and again four years ago, America elected a President. Fully half, give or take a couple of percent, disagreed with the outcome.
There were exactly zero riots, fires, "mass protests" and similar following that outcome despite the fact that half the population vehemently disagreed with it.
This time around, not so much.
Now I want you think very carefully about the following.
Most of the land mass of this nation is owned and resided upon by people who are in "red" (that is, the winner this time) areas of the country. With the exception of certain urban centers and right along the Mexican/Texas border there are very few "solid" blue areas.
Those urban centers consume roughly 90% of the energy and food in this country yet they comprise 5-10% of the land mass. The "red" areas produce 95% of the food and energy this nation consumes and occupies 90-95% of the land mass.
Do you really think that doing something like eliminating the last pieces of the structure our founding fathers put in place to prevent tyranny of the majority from being able to take hold is a good idea?
A little history lesson: Prior to the 17th Amendment ratified in 1913 it was impossible for the Federal Government to shove any program down the throats of the 50 states. That's because the state legislatures had effective control of the Senate and could recall their Senators.
The House was elected by the people, the Senate was elected by The State Legislatures (and could be recalled by same) and The President was elected by the Electors, which were voted for in the popular vote.
The latter provides a modest but real increase in the representation of "flyover" states; that is, those with lower population counts. In other words it is a check and balance in the ultimate tyranny of democracy.
Yes, I said democracy is ultimately tyrannical -- because it is.
America is not a Democracy. It is a Constitutional Republic. This is very important; in a democracy 50%+1 can render the 50%-1 slaves by mere vote. Those who are in the minority in a democracy have no rights at all.
We are all minorities in some form or fashion. If you're gay, black, yellow, male, female, whatever -- all it takes is some other set of groups to get together and decide to oppress you, and in a democracy you're fucked.
America's founding fathers put in place two systems to prevent this. The first was the bicameral legislature; a House elected by the people at large and a Senate elected by the State Legislators. This structure guaranteed that a landmass that amassed 50%+1 of the population (not even in the same state or states!) could not band together and shove down the throat of the States any policy measure because you needed the concurrence of more than half the state legislatures, where each were delegated but two votes to their Senators who were accountable to said legislature, to pass anything at all.
This evaporated with the passage of the 17th Amendment. Now you only needed 50%+1 of the people in a given state to pass anything you wanted and they could all live in a tiny percentage of the land mass -- such as is the case with Illinois where more than half the population lives in the immediate area of Chicago.
What came right after that? Prohibition, shoved down the throat of the States, less then 7 years later!
What also came after it was an unbridled expansion of the Federal Government into state affairs. Indeed, virtually everything became a "legitimate" federal matter. Why? Because it was impossible for the States to prevent it.
Do you think the founders were wrong to do what they did, and the 17th Amendment corrected that?
If you believe so then please consider this.
Due to exceeding the 10,000 character limit, see Part 2 for the rest of Karl's article.
Last edited: